Armstrong v. O'CONNELL’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably Kevin Armstrong v. Board Of School Directors Of The City Of Milwaukee (1980), Miller v. Carson (1977)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1920 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond · Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · Green v. County School Board of New Kent County · City of Kenosha v. Bruno
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The district court’s only legitimate concern is to see to it that the constitutional violation is corrected. As a practical matter, local school officials should have a ‘first crack’ at coming up with a desegregation remedy, * * *. * * * [I]t has been held that ‘[o]rdinarily, the court will not substitute its discretion for that of a board of education but will adopt a plan proposed by the board if it fulfills the board’s duty to eliminate the effects of past illegal conduct.’ (Citation omitted.) “At the same time, however, the Supreme Court has instructed district courts to consider school board plans ‘in light of any alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more promising in their effectiveness.’ (Citation omitted.)””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““When an appeal is taken from an interlocutory or final judgment granting * * * an injunction, the court, in its discretion may suspend [or] modify * * an injunction during the pendency of the appeal * * * * * *” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Each factor must be considered in relation to the others, and the interaction of all four must be weighed. Failure to meet one factor may be excused in light of particularly strong showing with respect to another factor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.